CentreRight

Who pays for the financial crisis?

I am certain that the vast amount of public money being spent in Europe on the financial crisis (as devised by Gordon Brown) may turn out to be the single biggest state expenditure mistake in recent global history. The pan-European spending spree amounting to £1.17 trillion could well turn out to be the biggest historic gamble of taxpayers’ money in recent European history at least. The key European governments are paying an amount of public money which is equivalent to funding a medium-sized state. The billions being thrown into the bottomless “rescue plans”, for example, are likely to cost the British household £20,000, the French household £11758 and the German household £9913. All of this, despite there being no real foreseeable conclusion to the financial crisis. We needn't be looking to Iceland to see the massive levels of debt that states have put themselves in during the crisis, when the leading countries of the European Union are attempting to spend themselves out of this black hole.

Gordon Brown, the European plan and on ‘praising what is good’

In answering to Charles Tannock’s (rightful) advice ensuring that we are “not blinded to reality by praising what is good when its obviously so even if emanating from the EU”, it is worthwhile focusing on Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling’s rescue plan and their supposed replication of the British model within a grander pan-European plan. After all, it sounds very good, does it not? Right now, Brown is being painted in the European media as a knight in shining armour. So, we must have some concerns for the plans, both the British package and also the trillion-euro pan-European plan. They are a big deal – and the Opposition is obliged to say something about it all (even if we are in agreement). So, here we go:

This is a massive gamble for taxpayers, both British and European. On the pan-European £1.17 trillion plan, I would suggest that the spending spree amounting to £1.17 trillion may turn out to be the biggest historic gamble of taxpayers’ money in recent European history. There are no guarantees it will work. There are no guarantees on future returns for eurozone Governments. There are certainly no guarantees that it will bring about more long-term good than harm in the global financial system. I am sure that the £1.17 trillion injection will be a welcome contribution to a pot which has so far proved to be bottomless.

Financial crisis, the EU and the British people

European Union government has been massively at fault in Britain’s (and the rest of Europe’s) management of the financial crisis – this should now be clearly obvious. You will not hear that from the BBC (technically obliged to act as a public service under the Charter) or even The Mail on, for example, the EU’s failure over bodged capital adequacy rules because of the stance taken by their governors. The media’s continued blackouts on reporting EU legislation underpinning the governance of Britain is a shameful dereliction of public duty and moral sense. It is logically nonsensical and morally appalling.

It is not a new phenomenon – it was Leith’s guidance of the BBC which blocked the broadcast of Winston Churchill’s warning of the impending German threat in Europe. It was both the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror who were, again, the early supporters of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. They all got that wrong and they have got it wrong again. We are in the same situation now and the little Europeans running the national media will have shamefully caused a similar situation. People have been misled. The very European government our leaders have sought to impose upon the country is about to destroy us, but the morally vacuous officials, with a biased national media who presume to know better, have not stated the issues. As was done with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Commission’s attempt in recent days to update its defective legislation comes far too late. The massive failure of the European Commission in governing financial regulation should lead us into the situation in which Britain can now seek a loosening of the relationship between Britain and the EU. Ever-deepening centralisation has not worked out for us. We do not need Lisbon, and nor did we need most of the provisions of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. The opportunity for an alternative way is laid out for us all.

Europe and the banking crisis

I thought that some people might be interested in Europe and the banking crisis concerns dealt with in my article today, written for the Yorkshire Post. Meanwhile, the expected failure for ‘unity’ on banking rescue plans at the Luxembourg meeting yesterday have now been overshadowed this morning by Gordon Brown's proposal for a European-wide funding plan for the medium term. It is proof of Labour's bottomless pit of spending. As if the mutli-billion pound spending spree and nationalisation has not been enough, we are now presented with proof that the rescue plan is no longer about the British national interest – it is about propping up financial institutions in the interests of Europe.

Britain would now appear to be forking out billions for the decades of failures of the European Union. In my view, British taxpayers' should not be paying for every Tom, Dick and Harry across Europe. European nations must pay their own way, to sink or swim their own banks, according to their own vital national interests. It would be reckless to pump several more billions into European banks, by acting against the interests of British consumers and taxpayers.

What are you doing in Luxembourg, Mr. Darling?

Isn’t Chancellor Darling misplaced in going off to Luxembourg to seek grander reassurances during a time of such an unsettling crisis – key European leaders (in Britain, Italy, France and Germany) talked on Saturday and realised that there was no official EU-wide bank rescue plan. Now, Darling is going off to guarantee £80K in all savings accounts across Europe – I wonder if Europe will agree to this? I wonder if it is the right kind of action that is required? Is this recent market action really just about bank deposit guarantees? I think it is an Irish idea and the Irish are not well liked the moment – key player, Germany doesn’t want to pay for all the debt of all the sinking Club Med states as it will cost them a fortune. Germany has always fought for a tough politically uniform European policy in line with its own ambitions whilst maintaining strong financial security at home. That should not change in the current crisis. Does Darling support the Irish idea? I can’t help but think the European Council negotiations are going to wind up like the Paulson deal and end up being far too late for some banks. The financial world can not wait for the tortoise response of Labour politicians – but it looks as if it is being left to work its own way out.

I told you many months ago that EMU would break apart …

I said it then … And now it is beginning: “Traders are starting to ‘price in’ an appreciable risk that EMU will break apart”, says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, where “the storyline is evolving much as eurosceptics predicted …”

Is Europe taking control of a British “bail out”?

I already blogged about David Cameron and his possibly problematic references to European regulations over the past few days at conference.

However, there is a new question: what view would Britain take over an EU-wide bail out plan in the current financial crisis? Is President Sarkozy wrong to try and put together an EU-wide bail out plan? Should Britain not be regulating its own plans? Sally Keeble MP (Labour) told Andrew Neil in the past 10 minutes that we should not support the EU bail out plan given that there are “significant differences” between nations in their own economic capabilities and banking difficulties. I would have to agree with that part of her argument, but not her support of Labour’s economic mismanagement of the crisis.

Louise Bagshawe tells it how it is

At 2.35pm, Louise Bagshawe does a good job, telling the conference of how she stood up as a heavily pregnant woman, going out to campaign for the Conservative Party.

Of Margaret Thatcher, Louise Bagshawe says “she fixed Britain’s broken economy.”

She says, I don’t want my little one’s growing up in broken Britain. Superb!

EU regulation is at heart of financial crisis, so what can the Conservatives do?

Heavy EU regulation is to blame for a large portion of the failings in the current financial crisis.

The UK’s implementation of the EU Capital Adequacy Directive within the framework of the Basel II Agreement, does underpin the downgraded value of banks, making the financial crisis worse than it really is. Richard North has done a good job of explaining this phenomenon in terms of how David Cameron promised at his Party Conference that he would like to get Britain out of this mess (without talking about EU legislation). Since the UK has surrendered control over this area of legislation for the financial industry, it is difficult to see how this situation is going to be reversed – will Cameron or anyone on the Tory frontbench talk about European governance of the financial industry, as is necessary for the reversal of this Government-assented problem.

Almost one year on, the empty Tory motto has not changed: “we would not let matters rest there”

Back in November 2007, Hague had said that following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum, such circumstances “… would not be acceptable to a Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there”. Eleven months on, it seems the phrase still holds true, despite everything that has happened.

As the BBC reports: “Mr Cameron would not be drawn on whether a Conservative government would hold a referendum on the EU treaty even if it had been ratified by the time they got into power. But he said they ‘would not let the matter rest there’ and would set out what they would do if and when the treaty was ratified by all EU states.”

Whether that is satisfactory to most Tory voters, we will have to see.

Put it this way: if the Party was questioned about any other area of serious consideration – whether that be rises in taxation, financial management for the 2010-2011 period, tackling the debt economy – would it be acceptable if Cameron simply replied “we would not let the matter rest there”. No it would not. The same applies to this urgent situation which the United Kingdom now finds itself in.

If the Conservative Party cannot offer a solution to one of the most pressing issues for the people and constitutional settlement of this country, then there is nothing serious to vote for.

What if Finnish Parliament (not the EU) controlled gun legislation?

This recent shooting in Finland by a 22-year-old student who shot 10 other students dead has proven one important dimension in better European governance. The people of Finland, if anything, have been failed by their own national Parliament – to legislate properly on their own gun laws, instead of waiting for the wording of a new EU firearms directive to be finalised in May, and the directive itself to be approved in July this year.

It is an essential part of the reason why nation states should control their own legislation and not Brussels – in this instance, the Finnish Parliament failed not only to be proactive (after already having one mass shooting in 2007) but now they claim they are unable to be reactive. They are now doing nothing but seeking an immediate and rushed implementation of the Directive. Here’s a plan: why not control your own affairs?

I also wonder if the EU gun laws would have changed a thing for Finland even if they had been implemented. It makes me reflect on what our own Labour MEP politicians are now thinking given that they recently wanted old-fashioned and authoritarian EU controls “fast-tracked” through the European Parliament over Finnish gun laws – would they have had hardly any effect on stopping Matti Juhani Saari, 22, arming himself with a .22 calibre handgun and doing what he did?

This is really what happens when people are badly governed.

Why David Cameron must lead a New Model Conservative Government

I feel compelled to endorse a new publication, The Plan, Twelve Months to Renew Britain, by Douglas Carswell MP and Daniel Hannan MEP, released today and I would suggest that David Cameron give serious consideration to its key proposals. It is targeted at a generation who have not yet given up with politics, but instead have given up with MPs, lying politicians, a cynical political elite, false Westminster promises and empty political initiatives. Thus, in the worst cases, those voters have ceased to believe in the ballot box. The election turnout figures have said it all – so the point does not need to be reiterated here.

Carswell and Hannan bat out some honest and very real plans for a 12 month term in Parliament, which can help bring about a true restoration of faith in Westminster and our national political system. Their ambitious aim, inherent in the Tory localist agenda, amounts to “nothing less than the restoration of liberty to the individual, dignity to the legislature and purpose to the ballot box.” (The Plan, page 44). The Conservatives must be responsible for rejecting the Big Government-knows-best approach and ensure that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people who are affected by them, decision-makers should be directly accountable and that the citizens should be as free as possible from state coercion (The Plan, page 42). It is a template for how many people would probably like their country to be run, given the completely disastrous management of Britain under New Labour and the collapse of trust in Parliament and its representatives.

Why not good old fashioned self-regulation?

Following the calls for greater regulation and intervention as international markets have been suffering, it is good to see Bill Cash's letter in the Times today, recognising the need for self-regulation. After all, you can't legislate for all matters.

Sir, There is one matter that is being overlooked, namely, the importance of self-regulation within the framework of the law. Ultimately, it is up to the directors and those who run the financial companies to behave in a manner that maintains proper standards based on sound principles and, dare one say it, moral rectitude.

It is not by any means a matter exclusively for the Financial Services Authority. We need to see that the City itself throws out the bad apples and blackballs those that transgress, stopping credit lines as required.

Parliament will not solve the problem and may exacerbate it by generating costly bureaucracy that will not fill the moral void here or abroad. Without a sense of fiduciary duty and self-regulating principles along the lines of the Quakers in the 19th century, no amount of legislation in itself will compensate for the greed and incompetence we have witnessed.

The same principles must apply in all professions whether it is finance, law, medicine, accountancy, or whatever — ultimately those who know best how to run the profession must exercise moral responsibility in weeding out bad practices and bad people.

Bill Cash, MP

London SW1

For every pound of petrol, 14.29p is controlled by EU’s VAT Directives

All the key industry experts agree that there is a massive injustice in the UK Government’s extortionate taxes on fuel: the UK now pays the most duty and VAT on fuel in Europe. The main fuel taxes (duty and VAT) account for around 55% of the pump price, but it is often the VAT cost which the decision-makers have ceased to question. Whilst the Treasury continues to generate an extra £123million a month in VAT compared to this time last year from drivers, already suffering under the burdens of taxes on petrol, it has agreed to maintain European Union VAT levels which it cannot now renegotiate. The explanation of why decision-makers cease to question the Chancellor’s maintenance of VAT on petrol, even as drivers continue to suffer in paying huge prices at the pumps, is because the root of its control lies with the European Commission. For every pound of petrol, 14.29p is deemed unarguable because the UK Government is locked into deals it has made with the Commission:

Will EU Directive damage Britain’s £8.5 billion art market?

Shadow Minister for Science and Innovation, Adam Afriyie MP, informs me at the European Foundation that a certain EU directive (the partially implemented directive 2001/84/EC) may lead to some long-term damage on Britain’s £8.5 billion art market.

The directive entitles artists to claim a royalty whenever their artwork is resold. And another part, which is not yet in force in the UK, enables artists’ heirs to receive a royalty for seventy years after the artist’s death.

He has stated that although the artist resale rights could have resulted in a more even internal EU art market, France Germany and Italy have all seen a decline in their world share of the contemporary art market, while Britain has been eclipsed by China as the world’s second largest market for contemporary art.

Along with his Conservative colleagues, Adam Afriyie has called on the Government to exercise its power to extend the UK’s derogation for deceased artists to 2012.

CentreRighter, Jeremy Hunt, has also said we must also consider the introduction of a self-registration system for living artists in order to reduce the regulatory impact on the art market in the UK.

Overall, I can’t help but think that the Conservative Party would be better off to promise to rebalance/renege on the terms by which the UK becomes consumed by such Directives, so that our world leading art market is “not undermined”, as Adam Afriyie has said “by ill thought through European directives”.

Adam's article on the subject will be printed in the Conservative Party Conference Edition of The European Journal.

Fundamental cornerstone of British justice surrendered to Europe

It is amazing how much EU legislation seems to go through without people being made aware of it – more recently, a fundamental cornerstone of British justice has been surrendered.

Last June, the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs Council reached a general approach on a draft framework decision in which Member States are obliged to mutually recognise decisions rendered in the absence of the person at the trial. The framework decision jeopardises fundamental principles of British justice such as the right to a fair trial.

Trials in absentia have been allowed in the British law since 2001 but only in rare circumstances – yet the Government has backed the EU proposal and in fact it co-sponsored it. Under the proposal a British citizen might be sentenced in a court of another EU Member State without his/her presence and then extradited to that Member State to face a prison sentence without having chance to exercise their right to defence.

The European Parliament issued its opinion on this proposal on 2 September: it approved the proposal for a framework decision on enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia by 609 votes in favour, 60 against and 14 with amendments.

Philip Bradbourn, MEP, Conservative justice and home affairs spokesman in the European Parliament, has said “This proposal goes against one of the most fundamental cornerstones of British justice – that the accused has a right to defend himself at trial. … Not content with eroding our liberties in Westminster, Labour is also undermining them in Brussels.”

Gordon Brown’s £1 billion household energy package – a result of bungled EU climate change policy

Gordon Brown’s £1 billion household energy package is not only naïve, unprincipled and cosmetic, but marks a failure of the Labour Government after adopting a botched EU climate change policy. His attempt to offer £910 million to pay for all low-income and pensioner families to get free loft and cavity insulation, with six million others offered half-price deals, is a short term fix. Basic economics will prove that those energy companies will now be forced to hit the consumers in the long-term with increased prices. Those are the terms of Brown’s daylight robbery of the Big Six power companies.

This is not merely a national failure – it is a failure of its European Union climate change policy. Brown’s national energy package has been presented as a ‘better alternative’ to a windfall tax. The windfall tax was itself debated by the Labour Party because the Government signed itself up to a European climate change initiative and got its figures completely wrong. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which was designed to tackle climate change through anti-pollution measures, ended up awarding large and substantial funds to energy companies. Labour has already realized the extent of the losses but will do nothing. It is already reported to have cost the UK economy up to £530 million a year. To rob the cash he lost on his bungled EU anti-pollution climate change policy, Brown is now pumping grand sums of money, £1 billion in fact, to prop up consumer energy and home bills.

To cover his mistakes on a massively destructive EU policy, Brown has decided to give away the money to cover himself. It will not rub off on the voters and the Prime Minister has already been rumbled. But it is on Europe, not merely his failed economic recovery plan, where he got the sums wrong.

How modern Islam has made UK citizens homeless in their own homes

Britain is gradually been surrendered to the spread of Islamic ideology. I would hope that in the long run, the United Kingdom Parliament and therefore the courts of this country recognise the massive damages caused by this highly politicized relgion – and reverse their efforts to convert Britain into some sort of semi-Islamic republic. The two latest Muslim cases in the MET police are simple instances of the Islamic takeover of the country and they are unacceptable.

I will restate, reiterate and paraphrase what I have already said on this matter over the past four or five years, the Islamic jihadists have clearly winning their battle over the British people. In the UK, the Labour government has shown that it is more than willing to jeopardise national security in favour of its oppressive multicultural agenda. Violent Muslims – a hotchpotch of infantile soul-searching converts, theocratic barbarians and permanently incensed and uneducated nobodies – who are supposed to be living as British citizens are intending to kill the people they live among. Clearly, the British multicultural project is failing to such a degree that citizens not only possess a visceral hatred of one another but they are now at war with one another.

Russia’s threat to West – the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline which pumps up to 1 million barrels of oil per day from Azerbaijan to Turkey's Mediterranean coast, and which is eventually shipped to Europe, was threatened in the most recent conflict. It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world. It was reported by Georgian officials on several occasions that during the conflict, Russian warplanes had attempted to bomb the pipeline yet failed. (Most bizarrely, in an unrelated incident, a Turkish section of the pipeline caught fire).

Russia is the dominant oil and gas supplier to Western Europe yet the BTC pipeline oil does not cross Russian territory, so there is a real question of energy politics here. So vital is the pipeline that it is reported that the United States military’s Special Forces trained 1,500-2,000 Georgian soldiers in anti-terrorism techniques under a $64 million program designed to protect the pipeline against those seeking to sabotage it.

There have been many (investment bankers through to journalists) who claim that the conflict was merely a local war for local people – involving the Georgians, the Russians, the South Ossetians and the Abkhaz.

This implies that the conflict was not about Russia warring with the Western world or Europe; nor was it concerned about energy. What do you think?

British Olympians have put our lost country back on the map

It is the most wonderful sense of individual and national achievement that every member of our Olympic team did so well in Beijing. They have put our old country back on the map which our own discredited Labour Government has so disgracefully trashed over the past decade.

Medals: 19 Golds, 13 Silver & 15 Bronze.

It is right that they come back with significant rewards of individual achievement and with an element of pride as the nation watches in support. It shall not be forgotten in a rush. Their endurance and fighting spirit to prove their abilities on such a grand stage, I would hope will provide inspiration for others to do the same in every walk of life.

If we are to ask what defines Britishness, I should think the potential for individual achievement at the very highest level is what we stand for, going beyond the given reality and defining the highest level of performance for the rest of the world. One only needs to have watched Team GB at the Beijing Olympics.

In particular, I was taken aback by the outstanding performance of Doctor Brabants in his kayak – the winner of our 18th gold medal – and have drawn him a picture in his honour. Well done Doctor Brabants and Team GB! Stunning performances.

Twice as many voters want Tories, but what about Europe?

Given that twice as many electors said they would vote Tory as Labour (48% to 24%) at the next general election, it is now time for the Conservative leadership to reflect on what they want to do with Europe, particularly following the undemocratic ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

If the Treaty is not implemented before the next general election, will the Tories strengthen their opposition by demanding a post-ratification referendum in a manifesto?

If the Treaty has been fully implemented before the next general election, will they seek a long-term renegotiation or rebalance of our relationship with the EU via a manifesto commitment? Perhaps this could imply the need for putting our own House in order first – even a new Act (or amend the European Communities Act 1972) to assert UK parliamentary supremacy over European legislation for circumstances when it is clear to our own judiciary that UK and European law has conflicting demands?

These, however, are not mere provisos because …

Tyrant of the week, Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin is a tyrant. David Cameron said as much when he referred to this latest episode in Russian interventionism as “… a dangerous doctrine with worrying echoes from the darkest chapters of European history.”

Putin was dishonest by claiming that he is Prime Minister in the Russian Federation since he took up presidential duties in the renewed conflict as if he held full and absolute control of Russia. Must I assume that he is now both President and Prime Minister?

Putin has stood at Georgia’s doors for years as a bully and now little Georgia stood up for itself. Certainly, Georgia’s initial reactions to Russian bullying were “misguided” but there is no reason for this loss of life and destruction resulting from Russian aggression.

We already know Putin forced his military to use “massive and disproportionate force.” Putin will now prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO in order to bring them under greater Russian control. These are massive interventions in outside territories and the UK must do something further.

Cameron is right on Russia, but EU is left powerless on sovereignty

Yesterday, I applauded David Cameron for his resolute position on the Russia-Georgia conflict. However, I want to make it clear that I did say there was a proviso to this position: "Whilst there are problems with reforming EU and international institutions in this wider picture, and the existing precedent that Europeans have set for abusing sovereignty, Cameron was generally right: there are no excuses for leaving the situation unchecked."

I therefore have a letter in the Irish Independent today, which makes the position clear in relation to the Irish 'No' vote in Ireland. It is an important one because, as has been shown, the Europeans may have left themselves open on the issue of sovereignty. The difficulty then is how Cameron would, in action, make his position a reality.

A PARALLEL can be drawn between the Georgia-Russia conflict and the Irish 'No' vote on the Lisbon Treaty -- at heart, both are about the attack on independent state sovereignty.

In that sense, Ireland (with its ignored referendum result) is in the process of becoming to the European Union what Georgia will become to expansionist Russia -- a "pseudo-sovereign" subsidiary province absorbed within a larger federal state leviathan.

Consequently, the global diplomatic discussions resulting from the current Caucasus conflict will hinge on the fact that Europeans have no higher horse from which to lecture Russia in respect of sovereign power, or its sacrifice. On this point, at least, I believe Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev are absolutely correct and have significant negotiating force.

JIM MCCONALOGUE

THE EUROPEAN FOUNDATION ST JAMES’S PARK, LONDON

My hero of the week, David Cameron

This week, I am positive people saw David Cameron as a Prime Minister-in-waiting. Now that Brown’s going the way of the dodo, they’re looking to Cameron for smart moves.

After returning from holidaying in Cornwall, he went straight for the jugular on the Caucasus conflict. European leaders (including our own) were busy side-stepping and prattling on like little Vicky Pollards (yeah but Georgia no but yeah but Russia) whilst Cameron went straight in for the kill:

“The situation is clear, hundreds have been killed. Russia has used massive and disproportionate force…Countries that want international respect do not attack their neighbours. … History has shown time and time again that if you leave aggression to go unchecked, you only store up graver problems for the future. … Russia says it is fighting in defence of Russian citizens in South Ossetia. Who will they claim to be defending tomorrow? Russians in the Ukraine, Russians in the Baltic states who are already members of the EU and Nato? … This is a dangerous doctrine with worrying echoes from the darkest chapters of European history.”

You will already know that David Cameron demanded that: the UK Government push to eject Russia from the G8, talks over an EU-Russia strategic partnership be broken off, Britain should impose visa restrictions on members of the Russian administration and fast-track Georgia to Nato membership. Whilst there are problems with reforming EU and international institutions in this wider picture, and the existing precedent that Europeans have set for abusing sovereignty, Cameron was generally right: there are no excuses for leaving the situation unchecked. Britain must stand up and lead by example.

Well done, Mr. Cameron. Keep up the good work! In his honour, I have drawn another appalling cartoon, but which I believe is an artistic improvement on the last.

My hero of the week, Mark Wallace

He is all over the BBC, all over the national newspapers and you can’t watch an ounce of news coverage these days without coming across him. That man is Mark Wallace, Campaign Manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

In his honour, I have drawn him a goddam awful sketch (I only just passed GCSE Art with a C grade).

In particular, this week, Mark scored an excellent point under the Sun’s headline, Euro clowns let Hamza off hook, which reported that nine judges at the European Court of Human Rights halted Abu Hamza’s extradition to the US on terror charges after Hamza claimed it would breach his human rights.

Mark had some excellent words for the story: “It is disgraceful that this man, who has only ever preached hatred against Britain and everything it stands for, is costing taxpayers so much money. … There is no way we should bankroll any more of his attempts to evade extradition. Britons don’t pay their hard-earned money in tax so it can be passed on to someone with such loathing for them.”

Then he turns up on BBC Radio 4, the Today Programme making the clear case for abolishing Regional Development Agencies. Each Regional Development Agency has cost British households £600 since 1999.

Good work, Mr. Wallace. Keep it up.